[Federal Register: July 31, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 147)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 49657-49665]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr31jy02-34]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AI 11
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the Beluga
Sturgeon (Huso huso) as Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this proposed rule, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service), propose to list the beluga sturgeon (Huso huso) as
endangered pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(Act). The beluga sturgeon inhabits the Caspian and Black Seas, and
spawns in the rivers that constitute the drainage basins of these seas.
Loss of habitat throughout historic spawning areas due to dam
construction and river-modification projects, over-harvest, widespread
poaching and illegal trade, and pollution imperil the continued
existence of this species. Due to the threat of over-harvest, this
species was listed in Appendix II of the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in 1998,
when all previously unlisted Acipenseriformes were listed, to conserve
all sturgeon and paddlefish species in international trade. Despite the
CITES listing, beluga sturgeon populations have continued to decline,
and the population structure is increasingly skewed towards sub-adult
fish, with a critical lack of spawning-age adult female fish. This
proposal, if made final, would extend the Act's protection to this
species. The Service seeks data and comments from the public on this
proposal.
DATES: We must receive comments and information from all interested
parties by October 29, 2002. Public hearing requests must be received
by September 16, 2002.
ADDRESSES: Submit any comments, information, and questions by mail to
the Chief, Division of Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 750, Arlington, Virginia 22203, or
by fax, 703-358-2276, or by e-mail, Scientificauthority@fws.gov.
Comments and supporting information will be available for public
inspection, by appointment, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marie Maltese at the above address, or
by phone, 703-358-1708; fax, 703-358-2276; or e-mail,
Scientificauthority@fws.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The beluga sturgeon (Huso huso, Linnaeus, 1758), is a member of the
genus Huso, family Acipenseridae, order Acipenseriformes, class
Osteichthyes, phylum Chordata, and kingdom Animalia (Pirogovskii et
al., 1989). The family Acipenseriformes encompasses all species of
sturgeon and paddlefish, the caviar-producing fishes considered the
most economically valuable fish in the world. Sturgeon have been prized
for their roe and flesh since ancient times (Bacalbasa-Dobrovici,
1997). The historic range of the beluga sturgeon included the Caspian
Sea, Black Sea, Adriatic Sea, Sea of Azov, and all rivers within their
watersheds (Khodorevskaya et al., 2000). Range countries include
Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Georgia, Hungary,
the Islamic Republic of Iran, Kazakhstan, the Republic of Moldova,
Romania, the Russian Federation, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and
Yugoslavia. The Adriatic Sea population is considered extirpated, and
the last record of a wild-caught specimen in the Sea of Azov occurred
during the mid-1980s (TRAFFIC/Europe, 1999).
Birstein (1997) notes that any remnant beluga sturgeon population
found within the Sea of Azov is maintained solely through stocking with
hatchery-reared fish. The current range of the beluga sturgeon is
limited to the Caspian and Black Seas, where until the 1990s, an
estimated 80-90 percent of the world's sturgeon harvest were harvested
from the Caspian Sea and lower reaches of the Volga River
(Khodorevskaya et al., 2000). Records compiled during the 19th Century
indicated that the Black Sea H. huso population over-wintered and
spawned as far north as the Austrian and Bavarian portions of the
Danube River.
Beluga sturgeon are extremely vulnerable to depletion due to their
unique life-history characteristics. The species is remarkably long-
lived and slow to mature. The oldest recorded harvested sturgeon was
found to be 118 years of age (DeMeulenaer and Raymakers, 1996), and
100-year-old beluga sturgeon were commonly taken in the northern
Caspian Sea during the early 20th Century (Khodorevskaya et al., 2000).
However, current estimates indicate that the oldest fish harvested are
50-55 years of age, with the average age less than 35 years old
(Khodorevskaya et al., 2000).
Reproductive maturity is reached between 11 and 17 years
(Khodorevskaya et al., 1997). Male beluga sturgeon generally spawn once
every 4-7 years, whereas females reproduce once every 4-8 years
(Raspopov, 1993). Fecundity in adult females increases with age; an
individual fish generally produces a greater number of eggs during each
subsequent spawning run. Adult females are capable of producing up to
12 percent of their body weight in roe (DeMeulenaer and Raymakers,
1996). Reproductively mature females are targeted in the fishery.
Therefore, continuous removal of the older segment of the population
has skewed the current population structure towards younger sub-adults,
and removed egg-bearing individuals from the population during the life
stage that ensures the survival of the species (Khodorevskaya et al.,
1997). Many female beluga sturgeon will never reach a size or age that
yields peak egg production, and may have only spawned once prior to
harvest. Moreover, increased poaching and by-catch indiscriminately
harvest juvenile sturgeon, which represent a significant loss to future
breeding populations.
The Caspian Sea Population
Khodorevskaya et al. (2000) noted that the number of beluga
sturgeon in
[[Page 49658]]
the Caspian Sea was ``considerably lower than those of other
acipenserids.'' In 1978, the total population was estimated at 12.1
million individuals, with a decrease to 8.9 million individuals by
1994. Data from a CITES-sponsored status survey conducted in 2001
yielded an estimate of 9.3 million individuals in the northern and
central Caspian Sea (Moiseev, 2002). This figure was submitted to the
CITES Secretariat by the Management Authority for Sturgeon of the
Russian Federation. However, several U.S. fisheries scientists believe
the current calculation of the northern and central Caspian Sea beluga
sturgeon population may be an over-estimate, because of questions
raised about the methodology and data interpretation employed in the
survey report. Based on Soviet and Russian Federation fisheries
reports, the absolute number of H. huso in the wild has decreased
dramatically over the past 30 years and continues to decline at an
alarming rate.
The population structure of beluga sturgeon in the Caspian Sea has
also shifted over the past 30 years, adding to concerns regarding
declines in abundance. The efficiency of natural spawning has decreased
due to a smaller mean juvenile sturgeon size in the Volga River system
(Khodorevskaya et al., 1997), younger mean adult age (Khodorevskaya et
al., 2000), a shift in the predominant age of spawning fish from
greater than 26 years to 11-17 years, and most notably, the overall
lack of available spawning-age fish (Khodorevskaya et al., 2000).
During the early 1970s, an estimated 25,000 Caspian Sea beluga sturgeon
migrated up the Volga River to spawn. However, by the early 1990s, this
estimate had dropped to 7,000 spawning fish (Khodorevskaya et al.,
2000). Additionally, the relative percentage of older fish dropped from
16.9 percent during the period 1966-1970, to 3.7 percent during 1991-
1995 (Khodorevskaya et al., 2000).
Replacement and augmentation of beluga sturgeon populations with
hatchery-produced fish has resulted in an H. huso population in the
Volga River complex that is believed to consist of 96.3 percent
hatchery-reared fish (Khodorevskaya et al., 1997). At the present time,
it is believed that the Caspian Sea population is no longer naturally
reproducing (Birstein, 1997; Khodorevskaya et al., 1997; Khodorevskaya
et al., 2000). Intensive hatchery production has been used as a method
of supplementing and maintaining wild stocks since the mid-1950s
(Birstein, 1997; Secor et al., 2000). However, stocking programs for
Caspian Sea sturgeon decreased during the late 1980s, continued to
decline during the upheaval resulting from the dissolution of the
Soviet Union in 1991, and persists to the present time. The
deterioration of sturgeon stocking programs is attributed to (a)
differing priorities of former Soviet nations that are struggling to
develop independent economies; (b) an aging hatchery infrastructure
throughout the region, and (c) the inability to procure sufficient wild
broodstock for beluga sturgeon culture and stocking programs. In 1995,
the number of female beluga sturgeon taken in the Volga River delta was
considered to be insufficient to support hatchery production efforts
(Birstein et al., 1997). This trend continues, as Russian fisheries
officials recently observed that there were few, if any, large
spawning-age females available to provide hatchery broodstock (TRAFFIC/
Europe, 1999).
The World Conservation Union (IUCN) classifies the Caspian Sea Huso
huso population as endangered (IUCN, 2000). Furthermore, this species
is designated as one whose natural reproduction is limited and requires
stocking of artificially bred juveniles to maintain the population.
Although hatchery releases have helped to augment wild populations
during the past 50 years, there is concern throughout the scientific
community that stocking programs are only a short-term solution
(Birstein, 1997). Artificial hatchery production is only one of many
strategies required to protect and increase levels of natural
reproduction of sturgeon stocks worldwide. The primary goal is to
implement a comprehensive long-term inter-jurisdictional fisheries
management plan that includes hatchery production and allocates a
shared resource in a sustainable manner.
The Black Sea Population
Beluga sturgeon have been commercially harvested in the Black Sea
for more than 2,000 years (Bacalbasa-Dobrovici, 1997b). By the mid-19th
Century, harvest of beluga sturgeon declined rapidly, particularly in
the Danube River watershed, the traditional spawning grounds for the
Black Sea population. Only 16 individuals were taken from 1857 to 1957,
in the middle and upper reaches of the Danube River (Hensel and Holcik,
1997). The Iron Gates I (Djerdap I) and Iron Gates II (Djerdap II)
dams, constructed late in the 20th Century, blocked spawning
migrations, which further reduced the remnant populations of the middle
and upper Danube River (Hensel and Holcik, 1997).
By 1835, the beluga sturgeon population in the lower Danube River
was also in decline. Commercial landings at the beginning of the 20th
Century continued to decrease at a rapid rate. Harvest in the lower
Danube River ebbed to 220 tons per year by the 1960s, and by 1994, the
fishery was reduced to an average annual harvest of 12.7 tons
(Bacalbasa-Dobrovici, 1997b). Beluga sturgeon are listed by IUCN as
``extirpated'' from the upper reaches of the Danube River, ``critically
endangered'' in the middle reaches, and ``vulnerable'' in the lower
Danube River (Hensel and Holcik, 1997; IUCN, 2000).
Summary of Factors Affecting the Beluga Sturgeon
Section 4(a)(1) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and regulations
promulgated to implement the listing provisions of the Act (50 CFR part
424) set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal lists.
A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species
due to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1).
These factors and their application to beluga sturgeon (Huso huso) are
as follows:
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Beluga Sturgeon Habitat or Range
Current data suggest that beluga sturgeon populations are highly
depleted and natural reproduction is limited to a small, highly
compromised portion of the species' historic spawning habitat.
Approximately 85 percent (Secor et al., 2000) to 90 percent
(Barannikova et al., 1995) of all spawning grounds previously utilized
by the Caspian Sea beluga sturgeon population have been destroyed or
are no longer accessible for spawning runs because of dam construction
and other river modifications. Messier (1998) noted that the surface
area of the Caspian Sea is some 169,000 square miles, yet all sturgeon
species that spawn in the Volga River utilize an area no larger than
1,000 acres (405 hectares) near the mouth of the river. Secor et al.
(2000) observed that greater than 90 percent of the current Caspian Sea
beluga sturgeon population is believed to be hatchery-reared progeny.
Beluga sturgeon no longer spawn in Azerbaijan, and spawning is limited
in the Russian Federation, Turkey, the Ukraine, and several rivers in
Iran (DeMeulenaer and Raymakers, 1996).
Dams, river channelization, and other man-made changes to flow
regimes significantly reduced the amount of available spawning habitat
throughout
[[Page 49659]]
sturgeon range countries. The Volga, Ural, Kura, Terek, and Sulak
Rivers are all segments of the species' former historic spawning range.
Today, the Ural River is the only river system within the Caspian Sea
region that is not dammed and continues to allow adequate passage to
historic spawning areas (Khodorevskaya et al., 1997). Recent
information suggests that poaching may have destroyed the Ural River
beluga sturgeon spawning stock (DeMeulenaer and Raymakers, 1996).
During the 1950s, all remaining northern and western Caspian Sea
tributaries were dammed for hydroelectric power generation (DeMeulenaer
and Raymakers, 1996). It is believed that the Volga River may sustain
6,000-8,000 beluga sturgeon of spawning age. Of this figure,
approximately 2,000 are believed to be mature females (Khodorevskaya et
al., 1997). However, construction of the Volgograd Dam from 1958 to
1960 reduced traditional spawning grounds by 88 percent (Levin, 1995).
An estimated 208,000 hectares in additional river systems throughout
the Russian Federation have been lost as potential spawning grounds for
beluga sturgeon due to river modifications. The spawning grounds of the
Don and Kuban Rivers in the Russian Federation are no longer accessible
to spawning sturgeon. The Terek and Sulak Rivers, and the Sea of Azov
are likewise compromised by pollution and damming. These areas can no
longer sustain spawning runs of beluga sturgeon (Khodorevskaya et al.,
1997).
In Iran, the Mangil Dam on the Sefidrud River is another barrier to
traditional spawning runs. Additionally, Hensel and Holcik (1997)
suggested that the Sefidrud River sturgeon spawning migration is also
unproductive because traditional spawning areas have been destroyed by
heavy industrial pollution and water extraction.
Approximately 85 percent of the Black Sea's Danube River delta has
been diked, producing over 300 reservoirs throughout the river basin.
Substantial losses of sturgeon spawning habitat in the area have been
attributed to dam and reservoir construction, other man-made river
modifications, and increased sand and gravel dredging (Bacalbasa-
Dobrovici, 1997b). Beluga sturgeon were once abundant in the Danube
River. Harvest rates during the mid-1970s averaged 23 metric tons
annually. However, after the construction of the Djerdap Dams I and II
during the mid-1980s, harvest rates continued to drop (Hensel and
Holcik, 1997). By 1994, annual estimates of beluga sturgeon harvest
declined to12.7 tons, indicative of the dams' effect on spawning
sturgeon populations (Bacalbasa-Dobrovici, 1997b). The H. huso
population in the lower reaches of the Danube River is considered non-
self-sustaining by international fisheries scientists. In the late
1980s, Turkish authorities located only five or six mature females in
the Coruh River, and an additional 20 mature females in the Kizikirnak
River during a quest to collect broodfish for hatchery programs
(Edwards and Doroshov, 1989).
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Overutilization is the most significant factor in the rapid decline
of the beluga sturgeon. The expansion of legal sturgeon fisheries in
former Soviet range nations after the dissolution of the Soviet Union,
and consequent disregard of the former Soviet moratorium on harvest of
open sea sturgeons (Secor et al., 2000) have resulted in intensified
fishing effort and over-exploitation that have further reduced
populations already in decline for decades. The effects of legal
harvest are further compounded by the ever-increasing illegal harvest
of the species. DeMeulenaer and Raymakers (1996) estimated the illegal
harvest at 6-10 times larger than the legal market, although more
recent assessments put that estimate at 11 times greater than the legal
market (Volkov, 2001). Illegal harvest and trade rapidly escalated
during the 1990s, and continue as the price of beluga sturgeon caviar
rapidly spirals upward.
The international demand for caviar is the primary factor driving
over-exploitation of the beluga sturgeon. In 1995, the retail price for
one pound of beluga caviar in the United States was $1,000.00
(DeMeulenaer and Raymakers, 1996); today beluga caviar sells for
$1,500.00 per pound on the U.S. retail market (Petrossian, 2002).
Sturgeon are killed to collect their roe, thereby removing
spawning-age adults from the population prior to spawning. In this
fishery, male fish are also killed because the sexes are
morphometrically similar and it is nearly impossible to visually
distinguish a male from a female sturgeon. Furthermore, harvesting the
younger segment of a population removes fish that may have spawned only
once, if at all. Therefore, these fish never reach the age of maximum
egg production, when an individual's contribution to the survival of
the species is greatest.
The caviar market is highly lucrative and involves a product that
is readily poached, in great demand, generates maximum prices, and is
packaged in small containers that are relatively easy to smuggle.
Although the caviar trade has been a highly profitable economic staple
in the region for centuries, it was formerly conducted under a strictly
controlled monopoly in Tsarist Russia and the Soviet Union. The
sturgeon fishery was closely monitored, substantially restricted, and
highly regulated. Program highlights included specific harvest
regulations, a moratorium on open-sea harvest, and a stocking program
that has been in effect continually from the late 1950s, albeit in
much-reduced circumstances since the late 1980s (Secor et al., 2000).
The northern Caspian Sea sturgeon fishery declined rapidly after
the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. The loss of centralized
control resulted in resumption of open-sea sturgeon fisheries, rapidly
escalating illegal harvest, a lack of effective enforcement measures,
and reduced availability of wild broodstock, which sharply curtails
hatchery production and re-stocking programs.
During the 1950s, sturgeon harvest effort was reduced due to
technological advancements ascribed to the use of plastic nets in the
fishery. However, this improvement for fishers proved disastrous for
sturgeon because the new nets profoundly increased the number of
juvenile sturgeon taken incidentally to targeted harvest of other
Caspian Sea species. In 1957, 1.8 million juvenile sturgeon, of a total
2.6 million sturgeon harvested in the Caspian Sea, were taken as by-
catch. By-catch of pre-spawning-age sturgeon increased to an estimated
2-3 million fish by 1959-1961 (Khodorevskaya et al., 1997). In 1967,
the Soviet Union instituted a ban in the Caspian Sea on open-sea
harvest of all anadromous fish species, to eliminate by-catch mortality
of juvenile sturgeon (Secor et al., 2000). However, with the loss of
the Soviet state sturgeon monopoly, by-catch of juvenile and adult
beluga sturgeon is once again common in open-sea Caspian Sea fisheries,
particularly the anchovy fishery (TRAFFIC/Europe, 1999). The effect of
by-catch on beluga sturgeon populations has not been recently
quantified. However, the resumption of open-sea fisheries harvest in
the Caspian Sea increases the risk of injury and mortality to all
juvenile and adult sturgeon, adding to the decline in populations,
potential changes to already skewed population structures, and a
significant impact on future stock recruitment.
In 1970, the Caspian Sea beluga sturgeon harvest was estimated at
2,800 tons, but by 1994, less that 300 tons
[[Page 49660]]
were legally taken (Khodorevskaya et al., 1997). The most recent
estimates of yield, based on 1970s fishery data, indicate that 7 kg of
caviar are retrieved for every 100 kg of total harvest (males and
females; Doroshov and Binkowski, 1985, cited in Williot and
Bourguignon, 1991). Excepting Iran, the countries that participate in
the Caspian Sea sturgeon fishery are still developing an effective
regional sturgeon management program.
C. Disease or Predation
Disease and reproductive abnormalities associated with pollution
have been observed in beluga sturgeon throughout their range. The World
Bank estimates that one million cubic meters of untreated industrial
wastewater are discharged annually into the Caspian Sea (U.S. Dept. of
Energy, 2000). Contamination byproducts from fossil fuel exploration,
production, and refining, untreated sewage, agricultural runoff, and
other industrial effluents exacerbate the problem. These toxins have
been associated with reproductive abnormalities, tumors, and large fish
kills in the Caspian Sea (U.S. Dept. of Energy, 2000).
Large-scale muscle degeneration has also been observed in all
sturgeon species inhabiting the Caspian Sea. It has been suggested that
muscular atrophy is caused by toxicosis resulting from increasing
pollution levels throughout the region. Bio-accumulation of heavy
metals and toxins associated with pesticides in the muscle and organ
tissue of this long-lived species is of grave concern. Likewise, bio-
accumulation of hazardous wastes may be having an effect on the
reproductive health of the species. Sampling conducted during 1990
yielded abnormalities in 100% of the sturgeon eggs collected in the
Volga River (all species were sampled), and even more alarming, 100% of
the embryos studied were non-viable (Khodorevskaya et al., 1997).
Hatchery-reared sturgeon are not immune to disease problems. Anecdotal
information indicates that many of the stocked hatchery-reared fish are
blind, due to an eye parasite (R. St. Pierre, personal communication).
The ctenophore, American comb jellyfish (Mnemiopsis leidyi), was
introduced into the Black Sea in 1982, from dumping of ship ballast
water. Given that there are no known Black Sea predators of the comb
jellyfish, its growth has been explosive. Within 7 years, the biomass
of M. leidyi in the Black Sea had grown to 800 million metric tons
(Bacalbasa-Dobrovici, N.,1997a). Comb jellyfish feed on prey that are
utilized by small marine fishes, such as anchovies, and include
zooplankton, pelagic fish eggs, embryos, and larvae. These fish are in
turn preyed upon by the piscivorous beluga sturgeon. To characterize
this concern, the feeding habits of the comb jellyfish resulted in the
complete collapse of the Sea of Azov anchovy fishery in 1989. The
changes in invertebrate distribution and faunal structure caused by M.
leidyi has had a profound influence on Black Sea sturgeon populations
by altering their prey base (Kovalev et al., 1994, as cited in
Bacalbasa-Dobrovici, 1997a).
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Currently, harvest of beluga sturgeon is prohibited in Moldova and
the Ukraine. It remains a commercially harvested species in all other
range countries. Huso huso was listed in the Red Data Book of the
Ukraine in 1992, so there has been no commercial harvest in the Ukraine
since that time. Most range states require a commercial fishing
license, although Azerbaijan did not establish this requirement until
2000. Annual catch quotas are set by Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, the Czech
Republic, Iran, Kazakhstan, Romania, the Russian Federation, and
Yugoslavia. Iran and Turkmenistan prohibit all private sturgeon
fisheries; the fishery is a state-controlled monopoly in these
countries. In 1996, the Caspian Sea range countries signed an agreement
that would prohibit open-sea fishing, thereby protecting immature
sturgeon stocks. However, the agreement has been difficult to enforce
and large-scale organized poaching continues.
Despite the quotas, the agreement banning open-sea fishing, and
other conservation measures taken by range countries, the sturgeon
fishery continues to be exploited by each range country without
adequate fishery management programs that would utilize the fishery as
a shared resource. We hope that the regional management program that is
currently being prepared for submission to the CITES Secretariat in
June 2002 will address the importance of inter-jurisdictional
management of all sturgeon species, including beluga sturgeon.
Khodorevskaya (2000) and TRAFFIC Europe-Russia (1999) noted that many
scientists and regulators believe that the failure of regulatory
oversight in the Caspian Sea region is an important factor contributing
to the rapid decline of beluga sturgeon populations.
Although Iran continues to implement a successful annual stocking
program, as well as strict management and enforcement measures to
conserve beluga sturgeon, the remaining harvesting nations of the
Caspian Sea have yet to implement effective inter-jurisdictional
sturgeon management programs. Many stocking programs initiated during
the 1950s to replenish sturgeon stocks have been seriously curtailed
due to the lack of state support, plant closures, an aging hatchery
infrastructure with inadequate funding for maintenance, and severely
reduced production (Birstein et al., 1997; Secor et al., 2000).
Compounding the deterioration of formerly successful hatchery and re-
introduction programs in the northern and central Caspian Sea area,
there is an absence of available wild mature broodstock to augment wild
populations and improve the genetic variability of those fish currently
held in hatcheries for culture purposes (Birstein et al., 1997; Secor
et al., 2000).
Beluga sturgeon was first listed as endangered by the IUCN in 1996
(IUCN, 2000). In an assessment by TRAFFIC (1999), the state of all
Russian sturgeon populations was considered ``catastrophic.''
International conservation measures were taken in 1998 to address
escalating concerns regarding the status of Caspian Sea sturgeon. At
that time, all previously unlisted Acipenseriformes species were
included in Appendix II of CITES. An Appendix-II listing requires that
all specimens of listed species, including parts and products, must be
accompanied by an export permit issued by a designated Management
Authority in the country of origin. An export permit may only be issued
after two findings are made: the Management Authority must find that
the specimen(s) were legally acquired, and the designated Scientific
Authority must determine that allowing the export will not be
detrimental to the survival of the species.
In 2001, the results of the CITES ``Review of Significant Trade''
(Resolution Conf. 8.9 (Rev.)) prompted the CITES Standing Committee to
recommend, with the full agreement of the Caspian Sea nations, a plan
of action to ensure control over the trade in sturgeon products,
improve law enforcement efforts, and facilitate the development of
regional cooperative management plans for all Caspian Sea sturgeon
species. These recommendations also included a 90 percent reduction of
the 2001 sturgeon harvest quotas, and closure of the fall 2001 harvest
season. In June 2001, the CITES ``Paris Agreement,'' developed at the
45th meeting of the CITES Standing Committee, required the Russian
Federation, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan to develop a regional management
and monitoring plan for beluga and other
[[Page 49661]]
sturgeon species at risk. Turkmenistan, although not a signatory to
CITES at that time, planned to assist in the development of this inter-
jurisdictional management program. The Paris Agreement requires
submission of the draft management plan to CITES authorities no later
than June 30, 2002. The details of the plan's provisions to reduce or
halt stock declines, decrease poaching levels, curb illegal trade, and
rebuild spawning populations are unknown at this time. Finally, the
Caspian Sea nations were directed to conduct a comprehensive survey of
Caspian Sea sturgeon populations before December 31, 2001. Preliminary
reports indicate that only 28 beluga sturgeon were located during the
survey, and over 75 percent of those specimens were immature fish. The
final report, including an analysis of data from the completed survey,
contains sturgeon population abundance estimates and has been posted on
the web site of the CITES Secretariat.
Earlier this year, the Management Authority for Sturgeon of the
Russian Federation, representing the four former Soviet range states
(Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Russian Federation, and Turkmenistan),
submitted a document to the CITES Secretariat entitled: ``Total
allowable catch (TAC) estimation for sturgeon species in the Caspian
Sea.'' This document discussed the methodology used to derive total
allowable catch (TAC) limits for the Caspian Sea sturgeon fishing
stock, and supports the nations' declaration of Caspian Sea sturgeon
harvest quotas established for the 2002 fishing season. The TAC report
was based on the results of sampling conducted in the northern and
central Caspian Sea from August 9 through September 25, 2001. Sampling
was undertaken as the result of a three-stage, 12-month plan of action
that was produced during the 45th meeting of the CITES Standing
Committee. This plan was developed to assist the Caspian Sea nations in
the creation of a science-based management system for the long-term
conservation and sustainable use of sturgeon (CITES Secretariat, 2001).
The goal of the survey was to estimate the abundance of each sturgeon
species, the number of reproductively mature individuals of each
species, and the potential size of the entire sturgeon spawning stock
by species (Moiseev, 2002). However, after review of the TAC report,
several U.S. fisheries experts (P. Bettoli Ph.D., Professor of Biology,
Certified Fisheries Scientist, and Assistant Unit Leader, Tennessee
Cooperative Fishery Research Unit of the U.S. Geological Survey-
Biological Resources Division; M. Parsley, Research Fishery Biologist,
Columbia River Research Laboratory, U.S. Geological Survey Western
Fisheries Research Center; R. St. Pierre, Fishery Management Biologist,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who serves on the Sturgeon Specialists
Group (SSG) of The World Conservation Union (IUCN); D. Secor, Ph.D.,
Associate Professor, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory; personal
communications) found the document to be lacking important data
necessary in the formation of fishery stock estimations.
These data include sampling effort, spatial and temporal
distribution of sampling effort, number of fish taken per trawl in each
specified area, and size and age distribution of sturgeon taken.
Several reviewers questioned the derivation of the value of the fishing
efficiency co-efficient of 0.04 that was used for beluga sturgeon. This
information is an important construct used to estimate stock abundance
and total allowable catch. Calculations based on an incorrect fishing
efficiency coefficient have a large impact on the total stock estimate
(Bettoli, personal communication). Each reviewer noted that, although
we are given the total size of the area sampled, and the approximate
area sampled by the trawls, the TAC report does not list the total
number of sampling trawls made, an important variable used to calculate
fishing effort, and consequently, to determine population size.
Furthermore, although the number of sturgeon captured was tabulated in
the report, it is impossible to interpret these data without
information about the size or age of the individuals. The total number
of trawl samples that failed to capture beluga sturgeon was
unavailable, as well as any indication that might explain the way in
which data were utilized when calculating N, the population size.
A basic assumption used in calculating abundance is that fish are
not evenly distributed across all habitats in large water bodies. It is
highly likely that, of the numerous sample trawls made during the
survey, many did not contain beluga sturgeon. Catch variation was
probably great, because some hauls may have comprised several or even
many fish, whereas others were empty. One reviewer noted that the N
statistic should have been calculated considering the range in
variance; he observed that the actual population estimate for Caspian
Sea beluga sturgeon is very likely much lower than the 9.3 million fish
presented (R. St. Pierre, personal communication). Another reviewer
independently confirmed the problem of determining N without accounting
for trawls that failed to capture fish. He noted that a considerable
number of tows must have failed to capture sturgeons. Excluding these
tows from the data analysis would result in a ``gross over-estimation
of N.'' Consequently, an erroneous calculation of N renders all other
calculations incorrect if they are based on N (M. Parsley, personal
communication). Furthermore, another variable, the distribution area
(S), was not clearly defined. Although the report listed several
different estimates of area, it was unclear which was used as S. It is
impossible to confirm the estimate of N without a clear definition of
S, which ultimately leads to the estimate of TAC.
The methodology used to determine a TAC of 9-17 percent of the
stock was also of concern, since the TAC report disclosed the quotas
for the 2002 harvest season, but did not adequately explain how TAC was
derived. The natural mortality rate of the stock was used as a
biological reference point (BRP) for determining abundance; however,
this estimate likely may be inflated. The TAC report assumed a natural
mortality rate of 13-14 percent for beluga sturgeon, but Bettoli noted
that a species with a maximum lifespan of 50-70 years would normally be
expected to have a natural mortality rate closer to 6-8 percent. Using
an incorrect natural mortality rate could also lead to additional
faulty conclusions. Bettoli also noted that natural mortality should
not be used as a BRP, because it cannot be manipulated.
The TAC report included no discussion of the methodology used to
calculate gear efficiency, an important consideration when estimating
abundance. A lower gear efficiency for the 9-meter trawl for beluga,
compared to that for other species, suggests that the trawl was
selective for sturgeon size. Beluga sturgeon are much larger in size
and weight than the other species sampled; a 9-meter trawl would
probably sample only smaller, non-reproductive-age sturgeon. Gear
efficiency is a meaningful variable, considering that an average gear
efficiency for beluga sturgeon would probably, as noted above, over-
estimate abundance for small juveniles, as this size range would be
captured most frequently. An average gear efficiency would also capture
few, if any, reproductive-age beluga sturgeon, thereby under-estimating
abundance for this segment of the population. Secor noted that the
trawl survey should be used only as a method to determine abundance of
juvenile and sub-adult beluga sturgeon. If this sampling method were
used for adult beluga
[[Page 49662]]
sturgeon, the results would likely be distorted.
Beluga sturgeon are known for skewed and variable size and age
distributions. Population structure analyses indicate that the juvenile
proportion of the species is the largest proportion of the stock, and
it is commonly held that hatchery stocking maintains this segment of
the population. Therefore, many scientists believe that, without
continued stocking with hatchery-reared progeny, the species might
conceivably be extirpated throughout its range. However, the assumption
that Caspian Sea beluga sturgeon populations are maintained solely
through hatchery contributions has not been satisfactorily verified. A
wealth of fisheries data has been collected over the decades for the
Volga, Danube, and Ural River systems. However, there is a need to
assess the potential contributions to the stock from populations living
within the smaller tributaries of the Caspian and Black Seas. At the
present time, this data is limited, and it is crucial that studies of
these populations are developed and funded. This data is vital for
management purposes, as well as plans for future stock enhancement.
These population studies must be conducted to prevent the possibility
of losing entire, and at this time relatively unknown, population
segments that may have a larger impact on overall stocks than
previously suspected.
Harvest of beluga sturgeon in the currently permitted open-sea
fishery of the northern and central Caspian Sea, rather than abiding by
the former laws limiting harvest to the tributaries, raises the concern
of impacts to mixed-stock populations that occupy these open waters. If
this fishery is allowed to continue, it could lead to extirpation of
local stocks, as it is impossible to determine from which specific
population individual fish are harvested. Additionally, harvest could
disproportionately affect a population that is already vulnerable to
over-exploitation (D. Secor, personal communication).
One of the most serious concerns, noted by all of the reviewers,
was the absence of uncertainty, or estimate variance, that should have
been built into the data analysis presented in the TAC report. The
reviewers also noted that the quotas allocated for 2002, particularly
the quota for beluga sturgeon, are probably too liberal.
The current minimum-size limits for all Russian sturgeons does not
effectively protect the most vulnerable life-stage, mature females, and
it is unclear how these limits were derived. The minimum-size limit for
beluga sturgeon is less than the average size of a mature adult fish.
This permits take of sub-adult fish that have not previously spawned,
and renders the species particularly vulnerable to recruitment over-
fishing. Beluga sturgeon are the most sensitive of all the Caspian Sea
sturgeon species to over-exploitation, due to late maturation and
infrequent spawning.
The reviewers commended the Russian Federation for their hatchery
and stocking programs for beluga sturgeon. However, they were concerned
about the efficacy of stocking due to the lack of assessment and
monitoring of the program. The number of fish stocked per unit area is
modest, and values such as the yield-to-fishery coefficient (percent
survival), which might yield a greater understanding of the results of
the program, were not included in the TAC report. Hatchery fish are not
tagged, and there is no evidence of mark-recapture studies to validate
the effort.
Finally, the reviewers were unable to re-create the estimates of
TAC based on the limited information and methodology provided (M.
Parsley and P. Bettoli, personal communication). Moreover, there was
concern that the TAC report failed to factor in estimates of illegal
harvest and its impacts on population abundance and structure. The
approach used in preparing the TAC report appeared to be lacking in
requisite data, and many assumptions were made without providing
supporting data that would allow others to independently verify the
methods used to construct these assumptions. The omission of variance
statistics was of special concern to the reviewers; the lack of these
statistics is one of the many indications that the monitoring program
should currently be characterized as experimental and in need of
further verification and modification before it can be considered a
fully effective assessment tool. Continuing to utilize the approach
used to estimate TAC, as detailed in this report, would not provide for
sustainable future harvest unless factors that influence catch per unit
effort (CPUE), such as increasing fishing efficiency, are considered.
This approach could conceivably result in collapse of the fishery (M.
Parsley, personal communication).
The illegal trade in beluga sturgeon is conducted outside the
confines of CITES regulations. As noted previously, it is believed to
be 6-10 times that of the legal trade (DeMeulenaer and Raymakers,
1996). The use of falsified documents, caviar mislabeling, mixing of
species in processed and packaged caviar, and export from countries
that are not beluga sturgeon range countries is widespread. Smuggling
is relatively easy, because caviar is packaged in small, lightweight
containers, and large amounts can be easily transported.
Poaching and smuggling have been intensively reported in the media
of range nations and importing countries (Evtouchenko, 1997; McDonald,
2000; Snyder, 2000). Confiscations have occurred regularly in the
United States. In the Black Sea region, Turkey and Georgia are among
the countries that report illegal harvest in their waters. In short,
there exists a lack of sufficient enforcement capability and ensuing
penalties for wildlife crimes.
E. Other Natural or Man-Made Factors Affecting the Continued Existence
of Beluga Sturgeon
Cyclic changes in sea level within the Caspian Sea have been common
throughout geologic time (Ivanov, 2000). A drop in sea level from 1970
through 1977 adversely affected sturgeon populations due to changes in
biochemical regimes and the subsequent changes in faunal communities
(Ivanov, 2000; DeMeulenaer and Raymakers, 1996). Although a rise in
water level between 1978 and 1989 may have had a positive effect on
other sturgeon species, the average weight of beluga sturgeon continued
to decrease from 110 kg in 1970, to 57 kg in 1991 (Khodorevskaya et
al., 1997).
Genetic alteration and hybridization of sturgeon stocks is also a
serious concern. It is postulated that the Volga-Don Canal, linking the
Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, allowed for an ``avalanche'' of genetic
alteration and hybridization between these sturgeon populations
(DeMeulenaer and Raymakers, 1996). Although hybridization occurs
naturally when artificial connections are made between previously
isolated water bodies, the rapidity with which hybridization occurs is
accelerated. This process can impact the homogeneity of populations and
further hamper recovery efforts.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
faced by beluga sturgeon in determining to propose this rule. Based on
this evaluation, the preferred action is to list Huso huso as
endangered. If no action were to be taken, import of beluga caviar into
the United States (the third-largest beluga caviar importing nation in
the world) would continue. As a result, fishing effort would increase
to meet market demand, and absolute numbers of
[[Page 49663]]
available adult female fish would continue to decline. The scarcity,
popularity, and demand for beluga sturgeon caviar is driving a market
that cannot be satisfied by current supply, and prices during the last
decade have escalated ten-fold to reflect the demand. Presently, a
pound of beluga sturgeon caviar retails for about $1,500.00. The
significant profit margin resulting from this scarce commodity further
fuels the trade. Illegal harvest and trade is particularly attractive
to fishermen in developing former Soviet nations that can make hundreds
of dollars per fish and traders that realize much larger profits. It is
quite likely that continued trade will increase the rapidity of beluga
sturgeon stock declines. Current hypotheses indicate that natural
reproduction can no longer sustain wild beluga sturgeon populations.
Indeed, some scientists suggest that wild stocks are now sustained only
through inadequate hatchery production and stocking programs. It is
quite possible that we are rapidly approaching the critical point were
the species will no longer be recoverable.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Endangered Species Act include recognition,
recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions
against certain practices. Recognition through listing results in
public awareness, and encourages and results in conservation actions by
Federal and State governments, private agencies and groups, and
individuals.
Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, and as implemented by
regulations at 50 CFR part 402, requires Federal agencies to evaluate
their actions within the United States or on the high seas with respect
to any species that is proposed or listed as endangered or threatened,
and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is being designated.
However, given that beluga sturgeon are not native to the United
States, no critical habitat is being proposed for designation with this
proposed rule.
With respect to the beluga sturgeon, no Federal activities, other
than the issuance of CITES import and export permits, are currently
required. Because the beluga sturgeon is listed in Appendix II of
CITES, a finding of non-detriment must be issued by the Service's
Division of Scientific Authority (DSA), and the Service's Division of
Management Authority (DMA) must make a legal acquisition finding,
before a CITES export permit can be issued for beluga sturgeon.
However, listing of beluga sturgeon as endangered under the Act would
require the issuance of Endangered Species Act import and export
permits by DMA, and consequently a consultation with DSA prior to the
issuance of the permit.
The Act and implementing regulations set forth a series of general
prohibitions and exceptions that generally apply to all endangered
wildlife. The prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21, in part, make it
illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States
to take (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these), within U.S. territory
or on the high seas, import or export, ship in interstate commerce in
the course of a commercial activity, or sell or offer for sale in
interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. It also is illegal
to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife
that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to employees or
agents of the Service, and State conservation agencies.
Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered wildlife species under certain circumstances.
Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR part 17.22 and
17.23. Such permits are available for scientific research purposes, to
enhance the propagation or survival of the species, and/or for
incidental take in the course of otherwise lawful activities.
Requests for copies of the regulations regarding listed wildlife
and inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be addressed to:
Division of Scientific Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 750,
Arlington, Virginia 22203, (telephone: (703) 358-1708; facsimile: (703)
358-2276).
Public Comments Solicited
The Service intends that any final action resulting from this
proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore,
comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental
agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested
party concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited. Comments
particularly are sought concerning biological, commercial trade, or
other relevant data concerning any threat (or lack thereof) to this
species.
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular
business hours. Commenters may request that we withhold their home
address, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. In some
circumstances, we may also withhold a commenter's identity, as
allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name or address, you
must state this request prominently at the beginning of your comment.
However, we will not consider anonymous comments. To the extent
consistent with applicable law, we will make all submissions from
organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying
themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or
businesses, available for public comment in their entirety. Comments
and materials received will be available for public inspection, by
appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.
Final promulgation of the regulation(s) on this species will take
into consideration the comments and any additional information received
by the Service, and such communications may lead to a final regulation
that differs from this proposal.
The Endangered Species Act provides for one or more public hearings
on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45
days of the date of the publication of the proposal in the Federal
Register. Such requests must be made in writing and be addressed to:
Chief, Division of Scientific Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room
750, Arlington, Virginia 22203.
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we will seek expert opinions of at least three appropriate
independent specialists regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of
such review is to ensure listing decisions are based on scientifically
sound data, assumptions, and analysis. We will send copies of this
proposed rule immediately following publication in the Federal Register
to these peer reviewers.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined that Environmental Assessments and Environmental
Impact Statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection
with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended.
This rule contains no information collection requirements. An
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection
[[Page 49664]]
of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
Clarity of This Regulation
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations
that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make
this proposed rule easier to understand, including answers to questions
such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the proposed rule
clearly stated? (2) Does the proposed rule contain technical language
or jargon that interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the format of the
proposed rule (groupings and order of sections, use of headings,
paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is the description
of the proposed rule in the ``Supplementary Information'' section of
the preamble helpful in understanding the proposed rule? What else
could we do to make the proposed rule easier to understand?
References Cited
Bacalbasa-Dobrovici, N.1997a. Endangered migratory sturgeons of the
lower Danube River and its delta. Environmental Biology of Fishes.
48: 201-207.
Bacalbasa-Dobrovici, N. 1997b. Danube caviar in danger. Sturgeon
Quarterly, 5:1-2.
Barannikova, I. A., I. A. Burtsev, A.D. Vlasenko, A.D. Gershanovich,
E.V. Markarov, and M.S. Chebanov. 1995. Sturgeon fisheries in
Russia, pages 124-130, in Proceedings of the Second International
Symposium on Sturgeons, September 6-11, 1993. Moscow-Kosyroma-
Moscow. VNIRO Publication.
Birstein, V.J., W.E. Bemis, and J.R. Waldman. 1997. The threatened
status of Acipenseriformes species: A summary. Environmental Biology
of Fishes, 48:427.
CITES Secretariat. 2001. Sturgeons, significant trade and the
``Paris agreement'' CITES World: Official Newsletter of the Parties,
8:1-2.
DeMeulenaer, T., and C. Raymakers. 1996. Sturgeons of the Caspian
Sea and the international trade in caviar. TRAFFIC International. 71
pp.
Edwards, D., and S. Doroshov. 1989. Appraisal of the sturgeon and
seatrout fisheries and proposals for a rehabilitation programme. FAO
Field Document I.TCP/TUR/8853. 38 pp.
Hensel, K. and J. Holcik. 1997. Past and current status of sturgeons
in the upper and middle Danube River. Environmental Biology of
Fishes. 48: 185-200.
IUCN. 2000. 2000 IUCN Red list of threatened animals. IUCN, Gland
and Cambridge.
Ivanov, Vladimir Prokofievich. 2000. Biological Resources of the
Caspian Sea. KaspNIRKH, Astrakhan. 96 pp.
Khodorevskaya, R.P. et al. 2000. Formation of the stock of the
Caspian Acipenserids under present-day conditions. Journal of
Ichthyology, 40(8): 602-609.
Levin, A.V. 1995. The distribution and migration of sturgeons in the
Caspian Sea. In: Proceedings of the Sturgeon Stocks and Caviar Trade
Workshop. Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation
and Nuclear Safety, and the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation.
Bonn, Germany.
Messier, M. 1998. The beluga sturgeon: caviar in danger? In TED Case
Studies: http://www.american.edu/projects/mandala/TED/STURGEON.HTM.
Moiseev, A. 2002. Total allowable catch (TAC) estimation for
sturgeon species in the Caspian Sea. Management Authority for
Sturgeon of the Russian Federation. 19 pp.
Petrossian. 2002. http://www.petrossian.com.
Pirogovskii, M. I., L. I. Sokolov, and V. P. Vasilev. 1989. Huso
huso (Linnaeus, 1758), pages 295-344, in Document Doc. 10.89; Prop.
10.65. 1997 Proposal to list all Acipenseriformes in Appendix II.
Submitted by Germany and the United States of America.
Raspopov, V. M. 1993. Growth rate of Caspian Sea beluga. Journal of
Ichthyology, 33(9) 72-84.
Secor, D.H., V. Arefjev, A. Nikolaev, and A. Sharov. 2000.
Restoration of sturgeon: lessons from the Caspian Sea Sturgeon
Ranching Programme. Fish and Fisheries, 1:215-230.
Speer, L., L. Lauck, E. Pikitch, S. Boa, L. Dropkin, V. Spruill.
2000. Roe to ruin: The decline of sturgeons in the Caspian Sea and
the road to recovery. Natural Resources Defense Council, Wildlife
Conservation Society, SeaWeb. 26 pp.
TRAFFIC/Europe. 1999. Estimation of the stock and population
conditions of sturgeons in Russia and monitoring domestic trade in
sturgeon products. TRAFFIC Europe-Russia field investigations. 18
pp.
Volkov, K. 2001. The Caviar Game Rules. Reuters-IUCN. 6 pp.
The primary author of this proposed rule is Marie T. Maltese,
Division of Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401
North Fairfax Drive, Room 750, Arlington, Virginia 22203; telephone,
(703-358-1708).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we hereby propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of
chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth
below:
PART 17-- [AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. Section Sec. 17.11(h) is amended by adding the following, in
alphabetical order under FISHES, to the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Fishes
[[Page 49665]]
* * * * * * *
Sturgeon, beluga................. Huso huso........... Azerbaijan, Entire............. E ........... NA NA
Bulgaria, Croatia,
Czech Republic,
Georgia, Hungary,
Islamic Republic
of Iran,
Kazakhstan,
Republic of
Moldova, Romania,
Russian
Federation,
Turkey,
Turkmenistan,
Ukraine,
Yugoslavia
(Caspian Sea,
Black Sea,
Adriatic Sea, Sea
of Azov and all
rivers in their
watersheds).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: July 9, 2002.
Marshall P. Jones, Jr.,
Acting, Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 02-19250Filed 7-30-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P